Here’s the list of scientific institutions and societies that have issued statements agreeing with CAGW, and that surveyed their members to find out how many agreed with the statement prior to issuing it, and published the results of the survey:

I have wondered about that modus operandi before. It is strange considering the official line of absolute confidence in a scientific consensus. Do they naively assume agreement among members or are they simply terrorized by any form of disagreement? Also, every single scientific institution and society with AGW agenda all acting alike? It’s not just peculiar, it’s bizarre.

He’s the guy who completely fouled up the estimation of the water vapor feedback to surface warming, but who nevertheless is always referenced by the warmists to justify the completely-out-to-lunch notion that it is strongly positive.

Ok, I wanted to know a little bit about who heads up the AGU and speaking as a cynic I must admit that I was not disappointed. I googled this from the National Journal/Energy website. The listed qualifications of this individual are pretty much exactly what I would expect. So, here goes:

Christine W. McEntee is a seasoned nonprofit executive with a proven track record of leading established organizations into even higher levels of excellence and performance.
McEntee has served as Executive Vice President/Chief Executive Officer at the American Institute of Architects from 2006 to 2010, Chief Executive Officer for the American College of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Foundation from 1998 to 2005, and held a number of director and executive-level positions with the American Hospital Association from 1986 to 1998.

McEntee received her Bachelor of Science in Nursing in 1977 and her Master of Science in Health Administration in 1982 from the George Washington University. She also attended the Advanced Executive Program at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management in 1997.

Board of Directors, Board of Trustees

American Board of Ophthalmology (2009 to present)
Medstar Research Institute (service began 2010)
National Building Museum (2006 to 2010)
American Architectural Foundation (2006 to 2010)
American Society of Association Executives (2004-2006)
Edmund Burke School (2003-2006)
Greater Washington Society of Association Executives (GWSAE) (2002-2004).’

Ok, I think the reader can glean that Christine McEntee is as much a geophysicist as my sister’s pet Cavalier St. Charles. Or, Christine McEntee is perhaps as much a geophysicist as my best friend’s pet Corgi. Maybe Christine McEntee is about as much a geophysicist as my pet Greyhound if I ever get around to going to the rescue society and getting one. Now, all those pets cost us money, and they might have an accident from time to time and do it in the house. But at least they don’t do it in our face.

“The study, entitled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” examines the publications and other activities related to climate science and the climate policy of 1,372 climate researchers (me included), then sorts those scholars into two bins. In one bin the researchers placed scholars supposedly “convinced by the evidence” (CE) which led the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have “very likely” been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.” In the other bin lie those scholars “unconvinced by the evidence (UE).” One qualifies for the “unconvinced group” by having “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.”

Let me answer my own questions. The science is not settled, the controversy is heating up, the debate is certainly not over, it’s just getting going! Their statement is not meant for the scientific community but for the media, politicians and general public. That’s it.

Interesting piece at Pielke’s site. More interestingly comments are NOT ALLOWED there and Desseler therefore doesn’t have to explain where the energy to evaporate that water goes, or where the energy to raise gigatonnes of it to 3-10km comes from; more how the additional water flux through the atmosphere can be sustained while still heating the atmosphere. Evaporating water takes energy, lots of it. Nor does he have to explain just how a system as remarkably stable as earth’s atmosphere can have positive feedbacks with a loop gain of more than 0.95 with time delays and remain stable!
Nor does he need to explain how the models produce a sensitivity of 3 where the real world has only demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 1.4 since the little ice age.

His discovery was extremely controversial. In the course of defending his findings, he was asked to leave his research group.Science Daily

I won’t even bother with Helicobacter pylori. This whole consensus shite tells scientists not to bother. Keep a straight path. The only problem is that the path could be wrong (or crooked). Is this the way science is supposed to work?

As global warming continues to “stall,” “pause,” or whatever term is preferable, the debate is still very much open. If global cooling kicks in over the next 5-6 years, and by all indications I have seen, it will, the debate may simply fade away as climate scientists gracefully exit from a consensus that never really was in the first place.

“In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.”

Andrew,
Are you certain you want to set such a precedent? I mean, your water vapour theory is being falsified by Planet Earth, as are the climate models themselves. What will you do if it continues this way? Resign from Planet Earth? Ah, well that would be tragic, but you would by no means be unique.

Climate Fascism is on the march, although you might have missed it as its followers don’t wear uniforms or go in for goose-stepping, but like all Fascists they are seriously uptight. Climate Fascism is incompatible with the scientific method or with debate, examination of evidence or critical thinking, and it will not tolerate dissent.

If I may wax Churchillian for a minute, the whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us now. Pachauri and Gore know that they will have to break us at WUWT or lose the war. If we can stand up to them, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Hello,
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has allowed for many years, more than my 23, those who do not have a university degree in Geophysics or any other physical science to become a member with payment of a nominal fee of, as of the year before last, $20.

When I first joined the AGU, paying $20 and a BS in Geology, I felt elated about such an Open society.

In the years since, I earned a M.S. in Geophysics then a Ph.D. in Geophysics.

The AGU in this period expanded and now includes members with degrees in Geography, Anthropology, Political Science, Social Science, Journalism and English.

The presentations at the Spring (deceased) and Fall Meeting (Big Tent Carnival Of Horrors) have drifted from topics in Geophysics to Lobbying Congress and formulating talking points for Media appearances against Ph.D. degreed physical scientists with knowledge, training and experience, though not of the preferred Federal religion of the moment and formulating a Legal defense when those who have a Ph.D. in Geophysics call the ‘unfortunate One’ to task for libel and slander.

With this as a background into the inner circle psyche of the High Command of the AGU, why would any President of the United States of America of any other, and much freer and open societies than the U.S.A., give a moments notice to the babble from a ‘Union’ whose constituents, mostly now as of 2013 only pay $50 for membership and who mostly do not have any degree in the Physical Sciences let alone Geophysics.

And add that the Executive High Command of the AGU believes that the President and Cabinet Officers and unelected though appointed/nominated Agency Directors of the United States of America are “breathlessly” reading the bull shit advocacy communist proclamations of the pitiful AGU.

NOWHERE in Dessler’s litany of unequivocal assertions, of strong and positive water vapor feedback, including common climate events like Mt Pinatubo eruptions, does Dessler ever mention that WATER VAPOR is a strong absorber of incoming solar radiation; which as a result will never reach the surface, and in particular the deep ocean where most of earth’s “heat” energy is stored.

Hey Professor Dessler, It is normal procedure to connect feedback network connections from the OUTPUT, to the INPUT, so that the effective operating INPUT is altered.

You don’t even acknowledge that the climate energy system even has an INPUT signal; namely the solar insolation.

Most scientific societies, like the APS that Lewis abandoned in protest, have clauses in their constitutions forbidding them from taking positions on behalf of the membership. Currently broadly ignored. Anyone have an AGU constitution copy? Probably the same. Notice any similarity to BHO’s attitude and approach?

Papertiger:
Thanks for that link to the brilliant post by Lubos Motl. Accurate and hilarious.
My favourite line was:

Dessler is writing another paper arguing that you can only see yourself in the mirror if you first clone your body and thus double your family’s CO2 emissions. Reflection is a myth promoted by the deniers, he assures us.

It never ceases to amaze me how this paper by Dessler is often quoted as authoritative on The Guardian Environmet website.
It’s as though they don’t care that it is debunked.

Andrew “Heat-Trapping Gases” Dessler – who thinks that CO2 in the atnosphere “traps” heat – seems to have snapped; suggesting that all people with a non-consensus opinion leave scientific societies; turning them into an equivalent of the SED in the DDR. Dear Dessler; please read up on Kirchhoff’s Law, and please, could YOU please resign from all your posts, as you have never advanced science and to this day obviously do not have the slightest understanding of thermodynamics. Please make room for a better man than you. Thank you, Dessler.

“Want to see the list again ?” – Very funny and spot on. Can someone please nail it ? Have been following WUWT for 3 years and spreading the word. But a game changer is needed. I wish I had the energy to nail this flimsy coffin once and for all. There is enough evidence and lack of CAGW etc evidence to do it. Why is it still alive?

AGU “Science has left the building” .. and we are now filling it with fruit cakes instead!

Dessler is a fruit cake. And this is why:

He think that clouds only “trap heat” when their ability to is minimal [compared] with their ability to reflect sunshine aka “Feedback”.

He thinks that CO2 is the only forcing who decides the color shape or cover of clouds.

According to the fruit cake theory clouds are black and doesn’t do anything on their own without taking orders from CO2. If you feel the cold or heat when clouds change, you have to realize that co2 has sent its order to the clouds to change. Because they have no freedom to change the [radiation] by changes in them selves,. well according to another fruit cake theory they might change by other factors but they dont change anything on a global level … unless co2 changes!

If anyone tells him that his is totally wrong, he screams and kicks like a child.

As it happens to be changes in global cloud cover since 1983 fits the GMT curve like a glove even over the “hiatus” period. Im waiting for a fruit cake explanation on that as well!

Is there a textbook on deprogramming a society? Yes, it is the same textbook as the one on brainwashing a society with lies. Except you substitute the lies with the truth, as best as it can be ascertained. Keys to deprogramming? Humor and the use of language, ie the fungiblity of phrases like climate change deniers. New phrase “climate science deniers”. Just pump out that phrase and link, link, link-Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup (start a Climate Science Meetup in your town!)
There are hundreds of great scientists doing heroic work in this field under intense resistance that you can link to.
Dr. David M W Evans, former “carbon czar” in Australia gives up on CO2 and the climate science denial community:
Professor Robert M Carter author of “Climate-the Counter Consensus” torpedoes climate science deniers tenets
Michael Crichton one of the 20th centuries top authors on fundamentalist environmentalism.
Talk about it-on many occasions I will say to someone, right out of the blue, “You know that global warming is TOTAL BULLS**T, don’t you”? It’s a very broad, unscientific opening, but you will find that a very many people are influencable with very little effort, and many will already know about the real situation. Geologists, as a profession, seem to be very aware of long term cycles, physicists tend to quote the second law of thermo-dynamics a lot, etc.
There are many, many excellent videos on YouTube, search a few of your favorite terms according to your experience and predilections and post-link, link-post.
Learn how to use Twitter-how to search, how to get tweets seen using hash tags (#) eg in my city, people who follow (our radically green global-warming and ICLEI enamored) city council use #vanpoli, the provincial government #bcpoli, the federal government #cdnpoli etc. Noodle around a bit and you can easily find the key political hash tags in your area. @ is used to identify users. Figure out who in your area has a very large following and use their @ in your tweet, eg I often use @Vancanucks-the local hockey team, which has 250,000 followers. There are others that have even more that I use, but you get the idea. Link to a favourite WUWT article or to YouTube or any other real science source to take the steam out of the climate science deniers. Remember, very few of the general public really know anything about science, and they are hungry for the truth. Here’s a short tutorial on getting started on twitter. Hint-use a relatively short username, that leaves more characters for your tweets!

Dessler’s newest 2013 paper finds that the sum of all feedbacks was negative between 2000 and 2010. Of course, this is written in such obscure language that one might actually conclude the climate models are accurate but the results are completely opposite to what the theory predicts in terms of net feedbacks. Observed net feedbacks are -1.15 W/m2/K versus +2.0 W/m2/K in the theory.

If the feedbacks in earth’s climate were inherently positive, then earth’s climate would be inherently unstable, regardless of any CO2 added by humans. This inherent instability due to positive feedback would mean that natural variability was HUGE. Anything that changed the earth’s temperature, be it volcanoes, or solar activity, or aerosols for example, would lead to wide swings in temperature.

Since both volcanoes and solar activity are naturally occurring, this means that if water feedback is positive, natural variability must be very high. That even the smallest change in solar activity or vulcanism that results in the smallest change in atmospheric temperature must change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, making the temperature change much larger than it would have been otherwise.

This means that if water vapor feedback is positive, then natural variability must be much higher than calculated from first principles. Water vapor would serve to amplify the smallest natural change in temperature, leading to natural variability being much higher than predicted.

So what is it? Is water vapor feedback positive, in which case natural variability must be high, which means the late 20th century warming could be due to natural variability plus feedback, or is water vapor feedback negative, in which case CO2 cannot have much of an effect on temperature?

The AAPG doesn’t even poll the membership on the society’s climate change statement. Although, they did tone it down a bit in response to a few warmist complaints.

The AGU is an extension of the National Academy of Sciences. So it should be no surprise that they toe the line regarding policy positions. I’ve thought about joining a few times, they have some very good publications. But, it really doesn’t have a direct application to work.

This paper (summarized by Doran in Eos) asserted that 97% of climate scientists accepted the IPCC version of AGW. That 97% is from a sample of 79 people and none of the poll questions referred to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Kendall-Zimmerman, never mentioned AGW” or greenhouse gas emissions in the two key questions…

1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?

2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Kendall-Zimmerman only invited 10,257 academic and government earth and atmospheric scientists to participate, 7,111 of which didn’t respond. Over 100,000 earth and atmospheric scientists with real jobs were left out of the survey. I belong to three AGI member organizations (AAPG, SEPM and SEG). The AGI directory was used to select the academic participants. I wasn’t polled and neither was any other earth scientist working in the non-academic private sector. They only surveyed academic and gov’t earth scientists.

How do you define “climate scientist”? Of the ~3,000 respondents to Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, only 79 described themselves as climate scientists. About 36% of the meteorologists and 53% of the economic geologists polled answered, “no” to the second question – And these were all academic and gov’t meteorologists and economic geologists. Had they included industry earth scientists, the percentage of “yes” answers to question #2 would likely have been a lot lower.

If I had been polled, I would have answered “yes” to the first question and I might have answered “yes” to the second question… Land use changes have had a significant impact on regional and possibly global temperatures. While GHG and aerosol emissions have had some effect, albeit minor. Although, I think I would have recognized it as a “push poll” and answered, “no” to the second question.

ferd berple says: August 13, 2013 at 6:25 am
If the feedbacks in earth’s climate were inherently positive, then earth’s climate would be inherently unstable, regardless of any CO2 added by humans. This inherent instability due to positive feedback would mean that natural variability was HUGE. Anything that changed the earth’s temperature, be it volcanoes, or solar activity, or aerosols for example, would lead to wide swings in temperature. …….

This is an important perspective concerning how atmospheric dynamics might actually operate. What would Brian Soden’s, Isaac Held’s, and Andrew Dessler’s counter-arguments be to this viewpoint, were they to step up to the challenge and address the issue directly?

This is the shameful end of a great system of observation, ‘science’, that has advanced mankind for over three hundred years. Once it was thought that there were immutable laws of nature. Now science has demonstrated that all is chaos. As we know, one cannot predict the future state of a chaotic system, yet alarmists persist in pretending to do just that. It was fun while it lasted, but now all is in ruins. Science, at the hands of her own great institutions, is self-desrtructing before our eyes. We are privileged to live to watch a paradigm shift to ‘post-normal’ science – an historic period! But such a pity that so many will suffer poverty, illness and premature death at the hands of charlatans who portray themselves as scientists.

Tim Groves says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm
—
Tim,
Remember that Fascism was a name the Allies applied to national socialism to differentiate it from international socialism, i.e. communism. But NO difference in either’s behavior toward the populace. So in truth, what we are dealing w/ here are really Climate Socialists, not fascists. Let’s call a spade a spade, nothing more.

It appears that there is still much confusion as to what a feedback mechanism actually is.

This planet has two predominant warming and cooling cycles: Daily warming and cooling and yearly warming and cooling.

A feedback mechanism cannot switch from a positive to a negative or from a negative to a positive feedback mechanism at will. It can only ever be one, or the other. Either positive or negative. It can never be both.

Therefore during the warming phase of the day/year, a “positive” feedback mechanism would increase the warming. Just as during the cooling phase of the day/year a “positive” feedback mechanism would increase the cooling.

Does that sound like water vapour? Humidity? Maritime climate, anyone?

All free flowing fluids, be they liquid or gas, are without exception, at all quantities above 0 ppm, negative feedback mechanisms.

Consensus.. Just the notion of this applied to science is unsettling. Granted I do know this is a contrivance of the political side and anyone with half a brain and a thimble full of curiosity can see the “BS” for what it is. But it would seem we live in a world of lemmings who find it easier to follow the idiot in front of them right off the cliff,

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our country, to ride out the storm of global warming alarmism, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of our people – every man and woman of them. That is the will of the nation.
Our diverse peoples, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.
Even though large tracts of the nation and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the new Fuehrer and all the odious apparatus of his rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on land,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,
we shall defend our liberty, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, a large part of our country were subjugated and starving, then our common people, armed and guarded by our loyal military, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, our loyal military, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the land from the enemy.

This is ABOUT terror. It was a terror campaign when Al Gore said we had to install his energy and environmental policies or fear for our lives.

=====
Txomin says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:19 pm

“…surveyed their members…”

I have wondered about that modus operandi before. It is strange considering the official line of absolute confidence in a scientific consensus. Do they naively assume agreement among members or are they simply terrorized by any form of disagreement? Also, every single scientific institution and society with AGW agenda all acting alike? It’s not just peculiar, it’s bizarre.

It’s about terror for being made a public spectacle on the internet by people claiming magic gas turned the gases that act as atmospheric refrigerants into heaters. The infrared resonant gases’ main component by far is water and water is the phase change refrigerant that refrigerates, the atmosphere. There’s no such thing as the “heating component” to the calculations for a phase change refrigerant, it’s a scam a sham and always was one, and anyone who has any scientific education at all knows it could be found if there was one.

People lost their jobs: real jobs – and were vilified and remain having been unrestored to their reputations by the hundreds. Entire fields were gutted of people who simply refused to say they saw potential for a whole new field of math to develop out of the refrigerant in your air conditioner having a calculable heating component. That’s how evil Al Gore and all who endorse this eco wacko insanity are. “Admit you believe refrigerant is a heater or I’ll destroy your career and your reputation.”